Talk:Euphonium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Euphonium article.
Article policies
WikiProject Marching band This article is part of WikiProject Marching band, which seeks to provide a comprehensive guide on topics relating to marching bands on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Euphonium, or visit the project page to join.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The Baritone is not the same instrument as a Euphonium! I do not know where you got your information, but they are two completely different things. The baritone is smaller in bore, and has a higher tamber and tone. The Euphonium is a larger bore and darker in tone. I play both instruments and know for a fact that they are different. The coined term baritone is an american term, and is used to flippantly.

C.S. OQuinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.33.5 (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Baritone/Euphonium

Please don't revert for vandalism before you discuss the possibility that the edit was in good conscience, and was in fact, right. A euphonium is the same thing as a baritone ,and the word baritone is more common, so the association is important in order to keep people interested, involved, and aware.

Thank you. EGM


You are wrong. You should not be reverting pages. You recently added link to a website that lead to pornography on this article, which is considered vandalism.

--Antonio Lopez (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on the pornography, that wasn't part of my edit, I just accidentally reverted to a previous CORRECT version that included that link. The edit is legitimate though, and I would appreciate if you wuolnd't revert the entire thing withoout discussing it first. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.141.83 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

regarding all that, why do you think the euphonium is the something as the baritone, you do now there is a bore difference. Who told you that there the same? --Antonio Lopez (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bowman pic

The only reason I put the Bowman pic on the left side is because all other things being equal, the images in an article are supposed to stagger right-left-right-left. Oh well... it's not that big a deal. --NetherlandishYankee 12:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baritone

People keep reverting my edits. I think it is important that people know that the Euphonium and Baritone are basically identical. In fact, I think we should just have the euphonium page point to the baritone page. Both instruments are pretty insignificant, so I think it would be prudent to abbreviate their entries as much as possible.

-EuphoniumGODMan

Given your uninformed response, your edits have not made your point. You need to read up on both pages, and if you would like to add a optional redirect to the baritone page, you can. However, you must understand that each instrument is technically unique in its own way. We encourage your continued discussion.

Robert 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you on that one. technicalities aside, they're the same instrument. I could almost be persuaded to lump these in with the tuba. I think to avoid confusion by readers, the edits I made were very appropriate. Thank you.

-EuphoniumGODMan

It could instead be stated in the intro that they are simliar, but changing every thing straight to baritone isn't the way to go. Maybe there is a reason the edits are being reverted. Sure i agree that they are basically the same thing, but then we would need to include both names everywhere. i find it less confusing between the euphonium and baritone sax if the word euphonium is used. as to avoid confusin with readers, i find it very confusing when it becomes a straight baritone horn article when the title is euphonium. well lets reach some sorta consensus Finbar Canavan 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we could compromise. How bout every other occurrence says "baritone" and every other one says "euphonium"? I just think that most people know the instrument as a "baritone". I know that anyone that has played in a band knows what a baritone is, but only a percentage of them know what euphonium is.

EGM

EGM, you're being parochial. In the US wind band tradition, "euphonium" and "baritone" are indeed *sometimes* (but not always) synonyms, but in the UK brass band tradition (which is not limited to the UK, but exists in various other countries too, including, but not limited to: Australia, NZ, US, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and Holland) they refer to two instruments of the same tube length, but fundamentally different bore profile. A euphonium is the big conical beast you're familiar with, and a baritone is more like a narrow bore double-size cornet. The contrast is very similar to that between flugel (as euphonium) and cornet (as baritone). To pick an example, the change you've made (I assume you're the anonymous user who keeps making the same changes?) that causes the sentence under "Notable euphoniumists" (UK part) to read "Steven Mead, English baritone soloist" is simply incorrect. Mr Mead and anyone reading this who is familiar with his work will be clear that "baritone" refers to a different instrument. Your edits are creating more confusion than they can possibly clear up; please take a moment to educate yourself on the subject before editing encyclopaedia articles about it... I recommend starting with the Wikipedia page Baritone_horn, which, although not entirely correct in its detail, does have a useful section entitled "Confusion" which describes exactly the problem you are creating here. Other pages on the internet, for example David Werden's page at http://www.dwerden.com/bareuph.asp explain the difference more clearly. Dave Taylor 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've fixed it, and because, with all the recent uninformed chopping and changing that there's been, some parts of it had got into rather a state, I had to do it by hand, which was not a lot of fun. Please *think* about the changes you make before you make them - just clicking "replace 'euph' with 'bari' and 'euphonium' with 'baritone'" in your editor changes all the references in the links, photos, and foreign names too - these parts of the page ceased to work after your changes. It is very easy to destroy a lot of good work by a lot of much more informed people with a few careless clicks. This is the downside to the beautiful concept of Wikipedia... Dave Taylor 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. 129.120.244.17 is clearly a troll who I strongly suspect knows me. I think he/she knows exactly what the difference is between and baritone and a euphonium and is just making flame-bait. Is there no way to get this idiot blocked, or can we request a longer protection for the page like we had last month?

--NetherlandishYankee 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You may report three-revert rule violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. —dgiestc 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Have just done so. Goodness this is annoying...

--NetherlandishYankee 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anyone from the Netherlands, I just think it's silly to have two articles when one would more than duly suffice. -EGM

Of course you don't. You still gettin' that World Class Sound (TM)?

P.S. If your motives are so pure, why don't you trying signing your name?

--NetherlandishYankee 18:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been signing my wiki handel- (EuphoniumGodMan.) I don't know why it has to be so personal, but my name is Rob McDaniel if you're that interested. look me up!

-EGM


Okay, KingBaritoneGod.

--NetherlandishYankee 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your praise, my Netherlandish friend, but I am not royalty. EuphoniumGodMan will suffice. Or if you want, you can just call me Rob.

-EuphoniumGodMan

I am the one and only Rob McDaniel, as you surely know since you go to school with me. :-P I've enjoyed our verbal sparring, but have fun trying to vandalize the page now, whoever you are.

--NetherlandishYankee 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop Lying, fake rob. And I was never vandalissing, and I dropped out of high school ,so I really wish you would clarify how you know me. If we really have the same name, that would be really cool. If you're just messing with me, please stop posing as me on the internet. My reputation here is all I have got. For proof, check to see who won the mock audition at Texas ITEC. That's right. Me.

I really do think euphonium should be changed to baritone.

-EGM

You can think whatever you like. You just won't be able to change it now. End of conversation.

Laters. --NetherlandishYankee 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For now. <3 <3 <3 My Netherlandish friend. I don't know what long distance charges are like for you, but if you ever want to discuss this over the phone, you can give me a call at [phone number deleted]. We can chat it out and settle this once and for all. -EGM

And you just crossed the line. You may not post my personal contact information on this forum.

--NetherlandishYankee 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

werr werr

Obviously Mr. Netherlands, you have more sway with Wikipedia than I do. I think it is childish and immature of you to steal my identity like this (and apparently you've been doing this for over a year now). This being said, I will refrain from posting any of MY personal info on this site, just to satisfy the wiki community that you seemingly have wrapped around your fingers. I want to thank you also for the phone call I recieved from you last night on MY number in which you cursed and laughed at me about getting blocked. I always enjoy your company. In any case, I will not back down from my assertion that I think baritone and euphonium should be switched, and I would appreciate it if someone in the wiki community would inform me on how I can go about becoming a huge wiki-star like NetherlandishYankee so I can make my opinion the "Truth" in this "encyclopedia". Thanks very much.

-EGM

Wow...

--NetherlandishYankee 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... What?

-EGM


Don't mess with TEXAS.

--EGM


Let it be clear that I AM Robert McDaniel. My Social Security number is 585-394-2984, just so you all know. My Home Address is 420 Tool Lane, Hippity Hoppityville, CA 90210.

--EGM

[edit] Picture

Kudos to Twirk88 for providing the picture of the compensating euphonium. I had wanted to put one up for a while but hadn't taken the time to find one that was fair use. --NetherlandishYankee 15:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, i found the direct link, but im not sure what the correct license is. can someone help me out?? Robert 04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Willson pic? --NetherlandishYankee 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

wasnt fair use. didnt know the right copyright for it Robert 22:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally got a digital camera for Christmas, so I just took a picture of my own Willson. That's the one that's up there now. --NetherlandishYankee 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... is that new pic fair use? --NetherlandishYankee 06:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

fixed the range, but find the copyright for the 842. Robert 02:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range

Some time back, I remodelled the range paragraph because I felt that it overstated the practical and useful range of the instrument. In the most recent edit, the estimable NetherlandishYankee reremodelled it back. It is all very well to try to talk about the "full capabilities of the instrument", but this is such a player-dependent concept that one must draw an artificial line somewhere, else one must include the highest note ever played on a euphonium. I thought the "similar range to a tenor trombone" line was a no-brainer - it avoids the difficulties inherent in judging what a satisfactory "professional" range is on an instrument where there are relatively few professionals, and where the standard between those professionals can vary widely. I suppose what my issue comes down to is the phrase "has an extensive range". "Extensive" is an appellation that demands a context. Extensive relative to what? To the trombone? Nope. To the bass tuba? Nope. To the horn? Definitely no. I'd like a little feedback on this point before possibly changing the phrase. Dave Taylor 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


I think it isn't impractical to just consider the standard repertoire for euphonium when trying to model the instrument's range. The lowest note you will find often- even in advanced level solo literature- is the "pedal F", though technically the instrument could play lower. The highest note that reoccurs in standard (maybe advanced) solo literature is probably (though more arguably) the high F. Again, the instrument supports a higher range, but as far as I am concerned, an instruments range isn't what notes any player can play, but rather what is expected of them imo.



I don't know... this article is about the instrument itself, not the limitations of players, professional and otherwise. Physically speaking, the lowest note the instrument is capable of producing is BBB, the second-lowest white note on the piano keyboard. Unlike the high range, this is not some freak-show thing; many many many players can produce this note easily. I play it nearly every day in my warm-downs. And it is not unheard-of in literature: Torstein Aagaard-Nilsen's Four Lyric Pieces uses it, I believe (James Curnow's Symphonic Variants uses DD (pedal D)). As for high range, it does get a bit more specialized, but high D and Eb are not at all uncommon, and high F appears in Symphonic Variants, Roland Szentpali's Pearls, and they are sprinkled liberally throughout the Linkola Concerto. On the other hand, the only piece I am aware of that uses notes above high F is the 3rd mvt. of the Golland Concerto no. 2, and I believe it's standard performance practice to take those notes down an octave. So the point is, there literature is out there that uses the extremes of range.

As for comparing the range to other instruments, physical capability may be similar, but our tessitura is HUGE. As demonstrated, some pieces (such as Symphonic Variants or the Gordon Jacob Fantasia) use virtually the entire range in one piece, and compared to horn or trombone, notes below the bass clef are MUCH more easily produced, especially our pedal range. I don't think there's many tenor trombone pieces that use the low tessitura as much as the Jacob Fantasia, to use just one example.

--NetherlandishYankee 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But the two concepts are intertwined; composers write notes that players can play, while players may increase their aspirations to match up to the parts that they are confronted with. Citing literature examples seems like a sensible way to make a cutoff concrete, but, as you note, there will always exist examples that were written for exceptional players that it isn't sensible to include in the 'standard' range. Compare the bass trombone; the highest and lowest notes that I am aware of both occur in the Taafe-Zwilich concerto, written for Charlie Vernon of the CSO, which covers 5 octaves from BBBb to double Bb (to borrow trumpet-speak). Contrast this with the entry on the "Types of trombone" Wikipedia page: "The range of the modern bass trombone is fully chromatic from the lowest fundamental with the valve attachment tubing deployed, potentially as low as C1 or B flat1, up to C5 or higher, depending on the player. It is usually scored in the range B flat2 to B flat5." (my highlighting). I am not sure if the nomenclature is quite right there (should the Bbs be numbered one octave less?), but the meaning is quite clear - although even in non-solo not-very-advanced-at-all literature, notes below pedal Bb may be found, the use of them is non-standard, and the core register is the 3 octaves from there upwards. Compare the tenor trombone range shown in the illustration at the top of the general "Trombone" article (E below bass staff to high C, with small notes beyond showing non-standard extensions to pedal E and high F). High F is a *common* note in advanced tenor trombone repertoire, even leaving aside jazz techniques, but it is still denoted as non-standard here. Ditto the upper pedals. The "Tuba" article also has a similar version of the illustration, with the core range stretching from an EEb up 3.5 octaves to an A (I would dispute this upper core limit on the same grounds that I am disputing this).

I suppose what I am arguing for is 1) Consistency with other Wikipedia pages, and 2) For the insertion of a statistic that is useful to the idle browser. Who are we trying to inform here? People who already know the instrument inside out, or people who don't know it at all (maybe composers looking for information)? I would have thought that the latter much more matches the aspirations of Wikipedia.

As a note, my useful range on both euphonium and bass trombone is identical. In the music I play, the euphonium is typically deployed more often away from the centre of its range, but the bass trombone is overwhelmingly more heavily used in the extreme low register. I suppose what initially sparked my concern here was that it looks a little like the article is 'showboating' - drawing attention to itself by claiming a bigger range than stands up to comparison with other like instruments.

p.s. There is a fleeting optional high G in the 1st solo part to Peter Graham's euphonium duet 'Brillante' for a further example of a note above F.

Dave Taylor 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we just have two different perspectives: I am of the view that since the article describes the capabilities of the instrument, if the instrument can do it (leaving aside freak things that only one or two players can do), the article should talk about it. My whole point in the last post was that high F's and pedal B's are not such freak things (a double-high Bb would be an example of a "freak note"). However, your point about "who are we writing for?" is well-taken; players familiar with the pieces that use high F's and pedal B's aren't likely to need Wikipedia to tell them about the range of the horn. One thing I will say, however, is that in general euphonium parts in ensemble music are more likely to cover a wider range than individual trombone parts or horn parts. In advanced band pieces, for example, one could easily see a C below the bass clef and a high C (c2); you are not as likely to see both of those notes in the 1st trombone part or the bass trombone part, nor in the 1st or 4th horn parts. In my view, the euphonium sort of features as a "jack of all trades" in band music; it can hang with the tubas or with the horns as far as range is concerned, and can hang with the low woodwinds as far as finger technique is concerned.

I guess the best compromise would be to note the euphonium's extensive range and then clarify what a standard "intermediate" range would be.

Nice chatting with you!

--NetherlandishYankee 20:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And likewise!

I'd suggest that the intermediate range should cover the range in which an advanced player (you, for argument's sake, as you'll probably introduce it...), can confidently play any passage of the same technical difficulty that they could in the centre of the register - how low and high can you tongue those jumping-around semiquavers cleanly without putting in practise time, basically?

Dave Taylor 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When we were talking about range examples, were you using concert pitch (eg in the Graham duet you referred to)? Just wondered if that was concert pitch or Bb transposition.

--NetherlandishYankee 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Concert pitch; i.e. Bb pitch A Dave Taylor 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holst's The Planets

I seem to recollect Holst saying that the Tenor Tuba part (in Mars I believe) should *not* be played on a euphonium. He wanted it to be played on a Tenor Tuba from the Wagner Tuba family. Please check.

Interesting, I hadn´t heard this. Even if it´s true, however, the section heading merely says 'Orchestral pieces with parts commonly played on euphonium,' which I believe the Mars solo usually is - even if it´s against Holst´s intentions! I will try to check on this. -NetherlandishYankee 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I´m not sure actual Wagner tubas are that easy to get a hold of anymore?
There are several makers, like Gebrueder Alexander and Thein in Germany or Kalison in Italy. You shouldn't be short of cash though.
What I find really interesting at this time are the 5-valved Thein tenor tuba (http://www.thein-brass.de/content/en/instruments.php?itname=tuba) and the Alexander baritone tuba (http://www.gebr-alexander.de/deutsch/instrumente/tenorhorn/151/index.html)... German style... again, let no shortage of cash stop you =;-) When asked about the differences between this instrument and the euphonium, Heinrich Thein replied: "From the outside, the tenor tuba may be the same as an euphonium, but as always, the details determine the character. All instruments belong to a family; the tenor tuba is the highest-pitched member of the tuba family, whilst the euphonium is the lowest-pitched member of the bugle-/saxhorn clan. While the tuba was specifically developed as a (symphonic) orchestral bass in Berlin, the euphonium (usually with piston valves) was developed as a military instrument in England.
In short: euphonium is louder, has thicker-gauged brass, has a heavier, darker, richer sound.
The tenor tuba has a sleeker, more transparent, finer sound." (my translation) --RGrimmig 22:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Four valves

I'm not sure about the line "Typically, a euphonium has four valves." The article makes it seem like 4-valve is the norm. It mentions 3-valve instruments only in passing. Most student and intermediate models, however, are 3-valve, and seeing as most people don't play Euphonium past high school, 3-valve seems the norm to me... I haven't made any changes; what do you think?

Well, the valve number is not a defining attribute of the horn, but nontheless beginner models are not really representative of the instrument. And anyway, if you give up after high school, do you really count as a true player? ;) Dedicated players will generally use decent horns, and these will almost always have 4 valves. Diagonalfish 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A great number of student and intermediate models are technically baritone horns. I'm not saying that this is the defining characteristic - I've seen four valve baritones and three value euphoniums. The 3 valve baritone and 4 valve euphonium are the standard, though, and have been since major instrument makers decided to call their lower models baritones and their higher models euphoniums, which caused all this confusion to begin with. -JJLeahy 06:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well in British nomenclature (and in brass bands internationally) the baritone and the euphonium have always been separate instruments. The baritone is smaller and has a narrower bore, hence a less 'mellow' sound - more horn-like. I've used these instruments from 50-yr-olds to the latest and greatest, but all the euphoniums I've ever seen have had four valves; for the baritone, four valves have been introduced on some models over the last few years. 82.36.75.208 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

See 'Naming Issues' in the Tenor Horn article for more info on this - sorry, not sure how to link to it. Xyster 21:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Great confusion surrounds this issue, so I´m not 100% sure, but I believe DiagonalFish is correct and JJLeahy may be mistaken. The old-school bell-front horn with 3 front-action valves is still a euphonium and not a baritone because it is conical-bore (as witnessed by the fact that the tubing grows wider before the bell). Though for whatever reason publishers, composers and band directors all started calling these instruments "baritones," I do not believe any beginning player has actually played a true baritone. The first time I ever played or even saw one was when I got to college and played in a British-style brass band, which has euphoniums and baritones. Once you have seen and heard a true baritone there is no mistaking them because the baritone looks and sounds completely different (it appears about 2/3 the size of a euphonium). In any case, DiagonalFish is certainly right in that the most common model of an instrument should be judged by what the professionals play; otherwise beginner models would the be the most common of every instrument because there are more beginning players than professionals. A euphoniumist - and yes I do regard that as the proper term - could not now hope to win a job in any military service band without a 4-valve, compensating horn. -NetherlandishYankee 13:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I play euphonium, and started out on baritone. I have never seen a 3 valved euphoium. I have seen a few 4 vavled baritones, however. I think that the article is correct in its assertation that euphoniums are typically 4 valved.

I play euphonium. The difference is not the valves, though I have yet to see a 4 valved baritone, I have seen many 3 valved euphonium's but it is that a euphonium gradually widens to a larger mouthpiece.

FYI. Four Valved Baritone (actually, very common) - http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail/0,,CNTID%25253D868%252526CTID%25253D243700,00.html

Three Valved Euphonium (also very common, esp. for beginners- note that it is bellfront as well. Not all 3 valve euphoniums are bell-front, this was just an example.)- http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail/0,,CNTID%25253D869%252526CTID%25253D243900,00.html

and the last contributer was correct. The physical difference between a euphonium and a baritone is the same difference as that between a cornet and a trumpet. One is conical, the other cylindrical.

Just because most of the better euphoniums have four valves doesn't make it a defining characteristic. Also, statistically, most of the better euphoniums owned by professionals and the better amateurs around the world have a silver finish. Yet, being silver does not constitute being a Euphonium, or even not being a baritone. -Jeeves


But. The Euphonium and the Baritone are still the same thing. -EuphoniumGodMan

Whooooa hold on there chief. Euphoniums and Baritones are not the same thing, its like a yam versus a potato. The term baritone is erroraneously used throughout the US by band directors that don't know any better. There are not a lot of REAL baritones in the US. Most of the 3-valved bell-front horns are American hybrids of euphoniums and baritones. How much music have you seen that lists the part as Euphonium instead of Baritone? Yet most euphoniumists don't whip out a baritone in concert band when the part calls for one. The baritone is going to be much closer in sound to a trombone than a euphonium is to a trombone. Euphonium more closely resembles a tuba sound (in a higher range obviously). -Euphman

[edit] "Major studio" list criteria

Also, I'd like to start a discussion on possible criteria for which college studios belong on the "largest and most successful in recent years" list. I confess that when I made the original list, I was just going by what I had "heard," by their reputations - not a bad barometer, as I consider myself fairly knowledgeable, but not quantifiable. I've noticed a few other colleges have been added, and while I don't necessarily have an issue with any of the schools that have been named, I want to avoid a possible situation where every college euphonium major goes and adds their college to the list. I see this list as a potentially important resource for a serious high school euphoniumist trying to decide which college to go to. So, some criteria I'm proposing would include:

  • number of students, first off
  • number of graduate students - important because it indicates the ability of the teacher to attract higher-level euphonium students
  • if not a large number of grad students, then number of alumni that have gone on to graduate school at another studio
  • number of students placed in major competitions such as Falcone or ITEC over the last 10 or so years, especially finalists or winners of such competitions
  • number of students that have made the finals round for professional auditions in the last 10 or so years
  • the quality and renown of the professor

Those are my suggestions; feel free to make others and then we can edit later. Thanks!

P.S.: I won't remove it, but I respectfully submit that the Capital University studio might not meet some of these criteria. I could be mistaken, however; please let me know if I am.

NetherlandishYankee 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that an instrument needs to have four valves to be "compensating". A fourth valve simply allows the instrument to play the notes between the pedal and the first harmonic - and extends the range of pedal notes playable. It is true that most commercially available instruments with 4 valves tend to be comensating too but that is not necessarily the case. Compensation is the correction of tuning which is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia in detail. It might also be worth noting that most Euphonium players operate a "slide" which is has a self returning spring to further correct the pitching of higher harmomics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.195.141 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major players

Just totally overhauled the Notable Players section. Decided it was getting too long and cluttered and I was tired of trying to decide who belonged on what list, if people were notable enough at all, so I moved the whole thing to its own page (List of euphonium players) and left in the body of the article only a handful of extremely important, indisputable players. Hopefully no-one will feel the need to edit these. Now anyone else can go in the list article. --NetherlandishYankee 06:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody just added Thomas Ruedi back to the Notable Euphoniumists section, and I removed him per my reasoning above. Ruedi is already listed at List of euphonium players, and I don't think he belongs on the same very short list as the players here. That was my intent - to have the list of players on this article be only a handful of extremely famous, universally recognizable players whose contributions to the euphonium world are unquestionable. Everyone else can go on List of euphonium players. Lots of people still haven't heard of Thomas Ruedi, while no euphoniumist hasn't heard of Behrend, Bowman, Mead, or Miura. If you can convince me otherwise, I'll reconsider. --NetherlandishYankee 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've played euphonium in the UK for 19 years, and have played to a semi-professional level for the last few. However, neither Miura nor Behrend had come to my attention before I read this page. Ignorance that shouldn't be accounted for? Possibly - after all, brass is my spare-time filler, not my day-job, but I wonder if these two are better known in the USA / among the professional euphonium fraternity than elsewhere. Dave Taylor 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Your point is well taken. I guess maybe it would be more fair to say that the list is of players, as I said, "whose contributions to the euphonium world are unquestionable" and whose fame in their respective countries is undeniable. As the three major schools of euphonium playing seem to be American, British, Japanese, it seemed reasonable to include the most well-known from those three. Certainly no British euphoniumist is unaware of Mead or the Childs brothers, and no Japanese player has not heard of Toru Miura, but it doesn't necessarily follow that every player everywhere has heard even of these famous few.

As for the players themselves, Roger Behrend has several solo CD's out, has been soloist with a premiere US service band for many years, and is a highly respected professor and clinician. Miura, while I know him only by reputation, is principal player in the Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra and teacher at the Kunitachi College of Music and certainly has been the most recognized face of Japanese euphonium playing throughout most of the 20th century. I removed Thomas Ruedi because although he is an extremely accomplished player, he just doesn't seem to be even in the same league of fame as the names listed here.

Thanks Dave Taylor. --NetherlandishYankee 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I just don't believe Phil Franke belongs on the Very Short List. Yes, he is principal euphonium of the President's Own and yes, he is an incredible player. However, Behrend and Bowman have, in addition to their impressive professional playing experience, left a legacy through teaching, through recordings, and through extensive appearances as soloists and clinicians - none of which Phil Franke has done. He is already at List of euphonium players, and I think that's enough. If you can provide concrete justifications why you think he specifically belongs here, I am more than happy to hear them.

Sorry to be so stringent about this list, but the whole point of List of euphonium players is to list a LOT of players - the point of this list is to keep it down to a very, very few who have left permanent legacies.

--NetherlandishYankee 02:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown Make

I recently bought a 3-valve Euphonium of the make "McEvoy", my Brass teacher has never heard of this make, has anyone ever heard of them?

If you got the instrument new and cheap from an online or mail-order store, it is was very probably made in China (PRC) or India and was given an English (pseudo-)brand name for marketing reasons. These guys keep coming up with new, supposedly un-Asian sounding labels every few months or so, like Johnson, Baltimore, Stagg, Harley Benton, Dimavery, Karl Glaser, Roy Benson etc. but whatever the name, in all probability they all come from the same Chinese concentration camp or Indian child slave labor sweatshop.--Cancun771 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Saxhorn?

Someone just added this block of text:

The Euphonium was invented by the man who invented the saxophone. They were meant to be sister instruments. The closest instrument to the Euphonium is it's cousin, the Flugel Horn.

Just off the top of my head, the saxophone was invented by Adolphe Sax, who if I recall correctly also invented the ophicleide (which was essentially a saxophone played with a brass mouthpiece), but not the euphonium. The euphonium, to the best of current knowledge, was invented in 1843 by Herr Sommmer of Weimar (as it says in the article). It was from the beginning totally different from the ophicleide, in terms of bore and having valves rather than keys. As far as I know, the only composers to write for the ophicleide were before the euphonium was invented (Mendelssohn and Berlioz come to mind). This makes it seem unlikely that they were "meant to be sister instruments," and what does that mean anyway?

As for the flugelhorn... meh. It and the euphonium are both conical bore and have valves, but whether they are the most closely related instruments is a matter of opinion. I always thought it was the baritone.

I'm deleting this addition. If re-added, I think it should be in a different section (Construction and General Characteristics), with proper grammar (don't capitalize the instruments, and "its" not "it's"), and more substantiated.

--NetherlandishYankee 16:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolphe Sax did invent the saxhorn family. The patents for these instrument dates from 1844 while the patents for the euphonium date from 1843. Neverthless the euphonium is related to saxhorn because of there similar construction .

[edit] Some weird grammar typos appearing for me, maybe I'm missing a font or something...

Whenever there is a flat sign that is supposed to appear in the text, I'm getting it as a  ? instead. Is anyone else seeing that? -Euphman

This is a problem that occurs with Internet Explorer. Other browsers (such as Mozilla Firefox display the Unicode flat sign correctly. To overcome this issue we have created Template:Music which should fix this problem. I've updated the article to make use of this template.--Dbolton 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Perry

Richard Perry is a tubist, not a euphoniumist, so I fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphman (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the difference?

I note that this page carefully distinguishes between euphonia and tubas, but doesn't explain how they differ. Unfree (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between euphoniums and tubas, basically, is that the euphonium uses the same mouthpiece as the trombone and plays in the same range (it has more lower notes if there's a fourth valve), whereas the standard tuba is a lot bigger (more tubing), uses a different mouthpiece, and plays an octave lower (a particular fingering on a euphonium is the fingering of the note one octave lower on the tuba). Esn (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)